Re: ASM and disk partitions offset
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:30:00 +0000
So the good news is : they're doing the right thing. The bad news :- you're now an I/O expert and all I/O issues belong to you. Cynical? Moi?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Radoulov, Dimitre <cichomitiko_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> A quick follow-up on this:
> we requested again from the storage team and the HW vendor to double check
> if partition sector alignment was "appropriate",
> this time (after having called their experts ...) they confirmed that it
> would be better to partition the disks using a different offset
> for the first sector (128 instead of the default - 63 in this case).
> So thanks again Niall,
> now I'm reading the articles you mentioned.
> Best regards
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Niall Litchfield
> <niall.litchfield_at_xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "I wouldn't bother" is probably incorrect. The details will depend on the
>> array stripe size, the sector sizes and probably the specific hardware.
>> said most vendors recommend the 1mb starting point for a partition
>> it has as a common divisor most of the usual allocation unit sizes and
>> label sizes. I quite like this article
>> written from a windows perspective with SQL in mind, but really the basic
>> issue isn't software specific. FWIW Oracle, Microsoft and VMWare all
>> recommend that you align your storage hardware with the FS/Volume
>> manager so
>> as to avoid doing multiple IO requests where a single request would do,
>> references below.
-- Niall Litchfield Oracle DBA http://www.orawin.info -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Feb 16 2012 - 16:30:00 CST